oppa_

well it is not about ferrari
well was waiting to the final ep to watch it after i can find if it doesnt lean toward an incest relationship justification

How does it hand does FL find out that ml was her dad ?

So they are playing husband and wife while actors can't even tolerate touches..

why its reviews says otherwise

I think that's exactly why corporal punishment is such a dangerous path. The biggest problem isn't just the punishment itself—it's who gets to decide when it's justified and who is "worthy" of using that power. Once adults are given legal authority to physically punish children, it becomes very easy for that power to be abused.

I come from India, another large Asian country, and despite corporal punishment being illegal, we still regularly see tragic news stories about it, especially in villages and smaller towns where the culture hasn't completely disappeared.

One case that has always stayed with me involved a young girl who was forced by her teacher to stand outside in the blazing summer sun for hours as punishment. The heat was far beyond what a small child could endure, and she tragically died. The teacher was later arrested and punished, but that couldn't bring the child back.

That's why I'm very skeptical of giving teachers or any authority figure more power over students. Power can corrupt, and even well-intentioned systems can end up harming innocent children when the wrong people are placed in positions of authority.

Ironically, the drama shows the opposite extreme as well. In Korea, juvenile offenders below a certain age often receive lighter legal consequences, and some students—especially those from influential families—feel untouchable. That's a real problem too. But I don't think the answer is to replace one dangerous imbalance with another by giving teachers extraordinary powers. A better legal system that holds both students and adults accountable is a much safer solution.

Thank you for information, I will continue from where I drop and rewrite this review soon.

You should have Questions those two why they rating 10/10 without completing the drama

You don't Question people who give 10/10 to this drama when just 2 ep were realised

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree.

You argue that the rich and powerful abuse their influence, but when I look at the male lead, I don't see someone fundamentally different from the people the drama criticizes. He's highly trained, physically powerful, politically protected, and backed by one of the most influential figures in the education system. In practice, he has more power than many of the people he's fighting.

Take Episode 1 for example. The bully is protected by his politician father, but the male lead is protected by the Education Minister, who is also his father-in-law. By the end of the conflict, it doesn't feel like justice defeating privilege. It feels like one powerful family defeating another more powerful family.

You also asked for an example where the male lead acted first. Episode 1 provides one. In the classroom, when the student refused to obey him, the male lead physically grabbed him and forced his face onto the desk. The student had not physically attacked him at that moment. The male lead initiated the use of force.

I agree that the drama raises real problems that deserve attention and that reforms are needed. My issue is with the solution it presents. If the answer to abuse of power is simply giving even more power to a government-backed group with legal immunity, then that starts looking less like reform and more like authoritarianism.

You mention that the male lead is willing to take responsibility for his actions. But what does "taking responsibility" actually mean when he enjoys legal immunity and political protection? Responsibility only matters when there are real consequences.

You also acknowledged that his attempt to kill the student responsible for his fiancée's death was unjustified. But if he had succeeded, you say he would have gone to jail. My question is: why would success matter legally? Attempted murder is already a serious crime. He intentionally tried to kill someone. The fact that he failed doesn't make the crime disappear.

Yet he faced no prison sentence and no meaningful legal consequences. Why? Because he had a powerful and influential father-in-law protecting him. That's exactly the kind of privilege and unequal application of justice that the drama claims to oppose.

So when the story asks me to see him as a symbol of accountability, I struggle with that. To me, he's another example of someone operating above the rules that ordinary people are expected to follow.

I agree with your first paragraph that bullying, abuse, corruption, and other problems in the education system need to be addressed, and that innocent students deserve protection.

Where I disagree is with the idea that the male lead is truly taking responsibility for his actions.

Saying "I will take responsibility" is easy when your father-in-law is powerful enough to protect you. The drama literally gives him legal immunity through political connections. That means accountability becomes optional for him. Ordinary citizens don't get that choice. If they commit assault or attempted murder, they face arrest, trial, and punishment whether they want to "take responsibility" or not.

You also mention the team's reconnaissance work to avoid harming innocent people. But the drama itself shows examples where they get things wrong or treat people unfairly. In Episode 4, the male lead kept his plan secret from his own team. The female lead interrogated an innocent student in a closed room as if he were a dangerous criminal, simply because he fought back against an abusive teacher. That's not exactly a flawless system that guarantees innocent people won't suffer.

And when we talk about accountability, what consequences did the male lead actually face for attempted murder? No court case. No prison sentence. No legal punishment. His connections shielded him from the consequences that an ordinary person would face.

The drama criticizes powerful people abusing their authority and bullying weaker people. My question is: how is the male lead fundamentally different when he's an adult using violence against minors while being protected by political power and legal immunity?

That's why I don't see him as a symbol of accountability. I see him as another example of someone operating above the rules that everyone else is expected to follow.

Very well done for dropping it without even starting it. You saved yourself a lot of frustration.

The ML is supposedly an ex-special forces soldier, yet now he's acting proud of beating up minor students and street thugs. The only reason he can do any of this is because he's given legal immunity and protection by people in power, including his father-in-law.

Anyone can play the tough guy when they know there will be no consequences. His entire motivation is personal revenge connected to his lover, not justice. Instead of looking heroic, he comes across as a pathetic loser who needs institutional protection to assault children and then gets praised for it.

I genuinely don't understand the hype around a grown man beating up kids and calling it justice.

So you will wait until snake bite you, lol lol lol lol lol

Where did I say he killed somebody
Attempted murder is also crime,
He has legal immunity so he can kill and walk away without consequences

Basically, she said I don't care what these people think or say, it is what it is,
Watch it or not, I got my cheque already, so it doesn't even matter...

The Glory teacher spotted

I know exactly what you mean. I've been pointing out these issues from the start, and usually that just gets me attacked by fans who seem more interested in protecting a drama's reputation than discussing what's actually being shown. I've had people tell me I should raise my ratings simply because they like the drama, not because of its actual quality or writing.

That's why I'm glad to see some people openly supporting the concerns I've been raising about this one.

What bothers me is that the story can easily be viewed as a villain story depending on perspective. We have a powerful politician who gives official authority and legal immunity to his own son-in-law through connections. That son-in-law isn't a helpless student or a minor—he's a former soldier and an adult. Then he uses that position to investigate, target, and expose the children of political opponents and other privileged families.

A lot of what we see in the first episode isn't stopping major crimes. It's taking school incidents, teenage mistakes, and conflicts that could often be handled through normal disciplinary systems and turning them into political weapons that can damage the parents. From that angle, it looks less like justice and more like using state power for personal and political gain.

Episode 3 made me even more uncomfortable when it seemed to justify corporal punishment. A female teacher physically hitting a female student on the palm is still a teacher using violence against a child. The scene felt strange because if the context were changed slightly, the same behavior could easily be condemned instead of defended. It almost felt like the drama was deciding in advance who deserves sympathy and who doesn't.

And that's my biggest issue: who gets to decide where the line is? Who decides which students are "bad kids" and which are innocent? Who decides who is a victim and who is a perpetrator? Is it really acceptable to label minors as monsters and argue that they deserve fewer rights or less compassion?

The drama keeps talking about justice, but justice becomes dangerous when people in power get to decide who deserves protection and who doesn't.

And if society is really concerned about accountability, why is that energy so often directed at children while many adult criminals get second chances? There have been cases of convicted offenders serving a few years and later returning to public life and even the entertainment industry. Yet the drama seems far more interested in portraying teenagers as irredeemable threats than asking difficult questions about adults with real power and responsibility.

That's why I can't fully support what the drama is trying to sell. Even when it raises legitimate issues, the way it frames them leaves me with more questions than answers.

The drama openly establishes that the ML receives extraordinary legal authority as an ERPB inspector, a position that comes with powers and protections that ordinary citizens do not have. The problem is that this position is effectively handed to him by his father-in-law, a powerful politician whose motivation is deeply personal revenge for his daughter's death.

That means we're not just talking about favoritism. We're talking about a politician placing his own son-in-law into a powerful government role while knowing that he has a personal vendetta against the people he will be targeting.

What made it even harder for me to accept was the scene where the ML attempts to run over a student with his car. Regardless of how evil that student is, that goes far beyond professional misconduct. Yet the story never seriously addresses the consequences because the ML continues operating under the protection of the same political system that put him there in the first place.

The show spends a lot of time criticizing corruption, abuse of power, and people who believe they are above the law. But when the heroes benefit from political connections, nepotism, and extraordinary legal immunity, the narrative barely questions it.

By the end, it felt less like a story about justice and more like a fantasy where a powerful politician uses the machinery of the state to empower his grieving son-in-law to pursue personal revenge. The villains are held accountable, but the questionable concentration of power at the center of the story is treated as completely justified because the protagonists are "the good guys."

That's what prevented me from fully buying into the drama's message. A system that grants immense authority through nepotism and then shields its holder from accountability would be dangerous regardless of who is using it.

I understand your point, and I agree that people can enjoy the drama as a fictional cathartic experience without applying too much real-world logic to it.

My problem is that the drama itself creates contradictions that make it difficult for me to fully support its message. The first episode criticizes a student who abuses power because his father is a powerful politician. But the male lead is also benefiting from political connections and nepotism through his father-in-law. So from my perspective, it feels less like justice defeating privilege and more like one politically connected person defeating another.

That's also why I compare it unfavorably to Taxi Driver. In Taxi Driver, the focus is usually on helping victims who have no other options. Here, the story often feels driven by one man's personal grievances, with students becoming the targets of his anger. The male lead doesn't come across as morally superior to the bullies. He's simply an older, stronger, more skilled person with legal protection and institutional backing.

What bothers me most is the lack of accountability. The drama keeps presenting the male lead and his team as unquestionably correct. What happens if they make a mistake? What if they wrongly identify someone as a bully? There is no trial, no transparency, and no independent oversight. The audience is expected to trust them because the script says they're right.

The legal immunity aspect is also strange to me. We're talking about a team funded by taxpayers, operating under government authority, led by people with political connections, including someone with a history involving violence against a student. Yet whenever legal or ethical concerns are raised, they rarely lead to meaningful consequences.

In the real world, a system like this would be terrifying. If a government-backed group can investigate, judge, and punish minors with little oversight, what's stopping them from targeting an innocent student, relying on false accusations, or abusing their power? Who verifies that their version of justice is actually correct?

That's why I can't see this as a story about justice. To me, it often feels like a story about power. The bullies abuse power, but the heroes do too. The difference is that the drama wants us to cheer for one side while questioning the other.

I can enjoy the action scenes, but the more I think about the underlying system, the harder it is for me to view it as something admirable.

Congratulations on escaping the shithole.

it mostly target student and justify evil teachers